In a ruling this morning by three senior judges — Lord Burnett of Maldon, Sir Terence Etherton and Dame Victoria Sharp — Johnson was found to have not acted unlawfully. However, the High Court did grant permission for the case to go the Supreme Court for an appeal, which will be heard on 17 September.

“We feel strongly that parliamentary sovereignty is fundamental to the stability and future of our country and is therefore worth fighting to defend. As our politics becomes more chaotic on a daily basis, the more vital it is that parliament is sitting.”

OPUS

Patricia

Sep 9 2019 10:30am

NOBODY like her tells me what I need, jumped up half British woman.
How DARE you dictate to me as to what I want and say you are more intelligent
than I am. You ought to mind what you are saying and MYOB.

Anonymous

Anonymous

Intrigued

Sep 6 2019 12:31pm

I had read one analysis which suggested that the high court would not find in favour, essentially to defer the decision to the Supreme Court. If anybody is more versed in issues like this, does that sound plausible to you? I suspected it was a political editor practising wishful thinking, but I don’t know if issues like this will see slightly different court practices.

Just Anonymous

Sep 6 2019 1:05pm

Completely implausible, for three reasons.

Firstly, such ‘deference’ did not stop the High Court from finding in favour on the Article 50 challenge.

Secondly, judges are (by their nature) highly opinionated. I simply don’t see them showing such deference when they don’t have to. Any High Court judge would be delighted to see a Supreme Court judge say in his or her judgment “So for the reasons set out by [name] J in his excellent analysis, we uphold his/her decision and dismiss this appeal.”

Finally, it also doesn’t make logical sense. Dismissing the challenge is still a decision.

Thus, in my opinion, the High Court dismissed the challenge because it honestly considered that the correct legal decision. Now we shall see what the Supreme Court thinks.

Eurolawyer

Rob Mugabe

Sep 6 2019 3:38pm

It is unlikely that the SC will allow a hearing of the appeal before having a look at the HC decision … and that carries the possibility that, having looked at the HC decision and considering it legally correct, the SC was content not to allow a hearing. Appealing a decision is not that easy.

David Clubman

phuk yu

G Britain

Sep 7 2019 7:34am

So fed up of this arrogant. Truculent. Self righteous. Narcissistic . Pompous. Woman. Who thinks she talks for the British people. I voted leave. And would still vote leave. Immigration was one of the main concerns for me. Flooding the country with millions of unskilled workers. Who then have to depend on welfare payments for the rest of their lives. And its working class taxes that go to support them. Not the rich. They have their offshore accounts, and avoid taxes. Like John Major ( remember him proroguing parliament to avoid cash for question’s ) where was bloody Gina miller then ? With her democracy? The people should take the government to court for the failure to implement a democratic vote by 17.4 Million people. If we don’t get Brexit bye bye British democracy. We will be living in a dictatorship. Wouldn’t Corbyn love that. There would be plenty of singing. Will keep the red flag flying here then!
Gina Miller. Respect the vote of the people. Read your history books. Churchill said. There has to be a federal Europe. But Britain can not belong to it.